Facilitation of No-Poach Agreements by Third Parties: Coship/Nevzat Denizcilik Decision
Introduction
No-poach agreements, which have become one of the most prominent concepts in global competition law in recent years, are defined in the Glossary of Competition Terms[1] as “agreements, whether direct or indirect, whereby one undertaking agrees not to make job offers to, or hire, the employees of another undertaking.” No-poach agreements may differ from one another in terms of their scope and subject matter. For example, a no-poach agreement may directly prohibit undertakings from making job offers to each other’s employees, or it may require that decisions regarding a candidate in the recruitment process be submitted to the approval of the other undertaking. Similarly, these agreements may cover only current employees or may be structured more broadly to include former employees as well.
Pursuant to the Guidelines on Competition Violations in Labor Markets (“Guidelines”) published on 03.12.2024, no-poach agreements that restrict employee mobility constitute an infringement by object and are treated as a form of cartel conduct.
The Guidelines also acknowledge that no-poach agreements may be concluded directly between undertakings or facilitated through a third party. Accordingly, if a third party mediates the agreement or facilitates its conclusion, such third party may be considered a party to the violation depending on the specific circumstances of the case. However, the Guidelines do not provide detailed explanations or examples regarding the specific roles that may render third parties liable in the context of no-poach agreements.
In its Coship/Nevzat Denizcilik decision[2] , the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) assessed whether Coship Denizcilik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (“Coship”) and Nevzat Aydın Denizcilik Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (“Nevzat Denizcilik”), both operating in the field of human resources services in the maritime sector, played a facilitating role in the no-poach agreement between Fatih Römorkörcülük ve Denizcilik Hizmetleri A.Ş. (“Fatih Römorkörcülük”) and Atlantik Gemi İşletmeciliği A.Ş. (“Atlantik”), and whether they could be held liable for the alleged infringement.
This article examines the Board’s Coship/Nevzat Denizcilik decision (“Decision”) with the aim of outlining how the Board may approach third-party liability in no-poach agreements.
Phases of the Case, Parties and Relevant Market
In its meeting dated 04.02.2021, the Board decided to initiate a preliminary investigation into Fatih Römorkörcülük and Atlantik based on complaints alleging that the undertakings had violated Law No. 4054 by agreeing not to employ each other’s employees. Within the scope of the preliminary investigation, on-site inspections were conducted at Fatih Römorkörcülük, Atlantik, and Coship.
Moreover, in its meeting dated 29.07.2021, the Board decided to open an investigation into Fatih Römorkörcülük, Atlantik, Coship, and Nevzat Denizcilik to determine whether undertakings operating in the PSV vessel management market had violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054 by agreeing not to employ each other’s employees.
The investigation was concluded through settlement with respect to Atlantik, following the Board’s decision dated 13.01.2022 and numbered 22-03/37-17, and with respect to Fatih Römorkörcülük, following the Board’s decision dated 19.01.2022 and numbered 22-04/56-25. However, the investigation continued for Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik.
As noted in the Decision, several independent undertakings operate in the maritime sector to supply crew members qualified to meet the needs of different types of vessels.
Coship, one of the parties to the investigation, provides crew recruitment services for domestic and foreign undertakings engaged in maritime activities and, in this context, carries out Atlantik’s human resources processes.
Similarly, Nevzat Denizcilik engages in activities such as preparing necessary documents on behalf of shipowners and ship operators, employment, dispatch and management of ship crew, resolution of disputes between existing crew and employers, and ensuring general harmony. Fatih Römorkörcülük’s human resources activities were carried out by Nevzat Denizcilik until 20.07.2020; after this date, Fatih Römorkörcülük established a human resources unit within its own structure.
Within this framework, in its market assessment and considering the fields of activity of the parties, the Board emphasized that the allegations concerned the restriction of mobility of personnel working on PSV vessels through an agreement preventing the transfer of such personnel between competing undertakings. The Board also underlined that PSV vessels differ from other types of vessels in terms of their purpose and operational characteristics. Accordingly, the Board observed that the relevant product market could be defined as the “market for the supply of crew to vessels providing support services for natural gas/oil exploration activities within the territorial waters and continental shelf of the Republic of Türkiye.” Nonetheless, the Board refrained from making a definitive market definition for the purposes of the case.
When examining the findings in the Decision, it is observed that in the correspondences where Coship was also a party, there are statements indicating that there was an agreement between Fatih Römorkörcülük and Atlantik regarding the transfer of employees and that Coship conducted its activities knowingly, taking this situation into account. In contrast, it is noted that no other evidence was found regarding Nevzat Denizcilik apart from a single correspondence. The Board also observed that the service agreement between Nevzat Denizcilik and Fatih Römorkörcülük did not overlap with the infringement period established in the settlement decisions. Taking these factors together, the Board concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Nevzat Denizcilik was a party to, or facilitated, the no-poach agreement between the competing undertakings.
Assessment of the Board
Firstly, the Board noted that undertakings that are not direct parties to a violation, and even those that do not operate in the same market, may still be held liable and sanctioned for their participation in the violation of Law No. 4054 pursuant to the joint liability provisions of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326.
In this context, the Board referred to its Çorum Building Inspection decision[3] , in which it examined allegations that building inspection firms in Çorum had restricted competition in the market through a system enabling price-fixing and customer allocation. In the said decision, the Board emphasized that the support provided by Duru Bilişim constituted an essential component for the functioning of the system established among the inspection firms. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Duru Bilişim played an effective role in the commission of the violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054, acted with knowledge of its conduct, and intended the resulting outcome.
Taking into account its assessments in the Çorum Building Inspection decision, the Board stated that for an undertaking to be penalized as a facilitator of conduct constituting a violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054 pursuant to Article 14 of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, (i) the undertaking in question must be intentionally involved in the violation and (ii) must make a substantial contribution to the implementation and/or continuation of the violation.
On the other hand, the Board stated that in the present case, it found no indication that Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik engaged in any conduct aimed at committing the violation, other than evaluating personnel applications in accordance with the criteria determined by Atlantik and Fatih Römorkörcülük and sharing the personnel lists they created for this purpose with each other. For this reason, the Board concluded that the violation occurred solely and entirely between Atlantik and Fatih Römorkörcülük.
In any event, taking into account the sensitivity of labor markets and the nature of the sector in which the undertakings operate, the Board decided to issue an opinion to Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik, reminding them to exercise due care in their human resources activities so as to avoid participating in or facilitating any agreement or concerted practice that may constitute a violation under Law No. 4054.
Conclusion
No-poach agreements can be concluded directly between undertakings or through a third party. However, the Guidelines do not provide detailed explanations or examples regarding which roles third parties may assume that would render them liable as parties to no-poach agreements. Therefore, it is expected that the conditions under which third-party undertakings providing services in the field of human resources can be held responsible for competition violations that may arise in labor markets will be shaped by Board decisions.
In the Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik decision, the Board examined whether Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik had played a facilitating role in the no-poach agreement between Fatih Römorkörcülük and Atlantik. Based on the findings obtained within the scope of the file, the Board concluded that Coship and Nevzat Denizcilik did not engage in any conduct contributing to the implementation of the violation, other than assessing personnel applications in line with the criteria set by Atlantik and Fatih Römorkörcülük and sharing the personnel lists they prepared for that purpose. Accordingly, the Board decided not to impose any sanctions on the said undertakings and instead issued a cautionary opinion to them.
On the other hand, considering the Board’s rigorous approach towards competition infringements in labor markets, it is foreseen that the standard of diligence expected from third parties will increase in the future, and that undertakings providing human resources services will be expected and required to act more carefully so as not to participate in or facilitate any agreement or concerted practice that may constitute a violation under competition law.
- Glossary of Competition Terms, Revised Sixth Edition, 2019, p. 51.
- Board’s decision dated 12.05.2022 and numbered 22-21/353-151.
- Board’s decision dated 02.12.2013 and numbered 13-67/929-391.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The Competition Board (“Board”) has broad powers to request information from undertakings. The legal basis for this authority is provided by Article 14 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Under this provision, the Board may request any information it deems necessary from public...
Competition authorities around the world have increasingly focused on labor market infringements under competition law, issuing new regulations and guidance recently. Notable examples include the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s joint guidance, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission’s...
Chapter 8 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) sets out the legal remedies available to data subjects in the event of a breach of their rights under the GDPR. Accordingly, each data subject has a right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority of the Member State in which they reside, work...
Mergers and acquisitions play a critical role in shaping the competitive structure of the market. Although such transactions can lead to positive outcomes such as the provision of products and services at lower prices, the development of new products and technologies, and improvements in quality, they may also...
Technology and the opportunities it brings undoubtedly play a key role in strengthening the competitiveness of market players. In this context, pricing algorithms that enable undertakings to monitor publicly available prices and optimize their own pricing strategies have become widely used, especially by digital platforms...
The Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Restricting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (“Former Regulation on Fines”), which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated February 15, 2009 and numbered 27142, was...
In the past years, the Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) has closely monitored the activities of undertakings operating in the retail sector. As a result of the Board’s record of administrative fines, horizontal type of violations in the retail sector have been highly publicized. Vertical violations such as resale price...
In recent years, numerous automobile manufacturers have announced their goals to reduce carbon emissions, with many brands setting net-zero carbon targets spanning from production processes to the lifecycle of their vehicles. While ongoing debates persist regarding the significantly higher carbon footprint of...
Under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Competition Board (“Board”) may conduct on-site inspections at the undertakings’ premises when it deems necessary in fulfilling the duties assigned to it. During the on-site inspection, the Board is authorized to examine all...
Agreements and information exchanges between undertakings in labor markets have recently been examined in various preliminary investigations and investigations initiated by the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”). Following the investigations in which some undertakings were subject to...
The Turkish Competition Board’s (Board) decision regarding the acquisition of the international road transport business line of Ekol Lojistik AŞ (Ekol) by DFDS A/S (DFDS) has been one of the most prominent transactions on the competition law agenda recently...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has broad powers to request information from undertakings. The Board’s authority to request information arises from Article 14 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Under the relevant provision, the Board may request any information it deems...
Doğuş Otomotiv Servis ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Doğuş) applied to the Turkish Competition Authority for an exemption for the practice of recommending basic wages to be applied to sales and after-sales service employees of its authorized dealers and distributors...
Access to Instagram was blocked ex officio by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) as of 2.08.2024. Under Article 8 of Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Publications, ICTA can issue an ex officio access...
It is well known that agreements between employer undertakings with regards to their employees, such as wage-fixing and non-poaching agreements, along with competitively sensitive information exchanges have been under the scrutiny of competition authorities all over the world, including the Turkish Competition...
Automotive is one of the sectors in which the world’s most significant investments are made. The Competition Board (“Board”) has been closely interested in the automotive sector over the years and has conducted various examinations and studies in this field...
Competition authorities around the world continue unabated to investigate competition concerns arising from data collection and processing activities of digital platforms and impose severe sanctions as a result...
The startup ecosystem in Turkey has experienced notable growth in recent years. In the last quarter of 2023, 81 startups secured a combined investment of around 60 million dollars. While the number of investments remained consistent when comparing the third quarter periods of 2022-2023, there was a decrease...
Hub and Spoke cartel is a type of violation that is not clearly defined and regulated under Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”). Decisional practices of foreign competition authorities, particularly the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions (“CMA”), are instructive concerning...
The Competition Board ("Board") made an addition to its line of decisions on resale price maintenance with its decision on Sunny Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. ("Sunny") . In its decision, the Board thoroughly examined the allegations regarding Sunny's involvement in maintaining resale prices and restricting...
It is observed that the Competition Authority (“Authority”) has recently scrutinized various industries such as fast-moving consumer goods, labor market, pharmaceuticals, and cement. When the reasoned decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) published in October are examined, it can be seen that the...
Jules Verne says, “Everything on earth has a limited lifespan, nothing that will exist forever can be created by human hands”. Perhaps change is the only constant concept in all our lives. Despite two major world wars and countless periods of crisis, humanity has been undergoing a great change and...
At the meeting of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) held on 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (“FFAR”). In the FFAR, various amendments have been made, such as the introduction of a maximum service fee limit that football agents are...
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) is still considered a hardcore restriction under the recently revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), which means that it cannot benefit from a statutory exemption under Article 101(1) TFEU, unlike certain other types of vertical agreements. However, it has been debated...
In competition law, it is important to accurately determine the concept of undertaking, especially in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, the concept of economic entity aims to reveal the economic units covered by the undertakings. The relationship between the concept of economic entity and family ties comes...
In these days when the Competition Board (“Board”) frequently imposes administrative fines for preventing on-site inspections and both the Competition Authority (“Authority”) and undertakings take legal and technical measures regarding on-site inspections, a striking development has occurred. In its decision...
Online advertising has become an important source for businesses for promoting products and services and meeting consumers, as a result of the rapid development of information technologies and increase in the use of internet. Delivering targeted messages to consumers at the right time through the digital...
Selective distribution systems refer to a type of distribution system in which suppliers commit to selling the contracted goods or services directly or indirectly to distributors selected based on specified criteria, while the distributors commit not to sell the said goods or services to unauthorized...
Fast-moving consumer goods is undoubtedly one of the sectors that the Competition Authority has been working most intensively since the COVID 19 pandemic. Among the most important developments of this period was the Sector Inquiry initiated on Fast Moving Consumer Goods (“FMCG”) Retailing...
In the decision of the Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court" or "Court") dated 09.11.2022, numbered 2020/67 E. 2022/139 K. (the "Decision"), the annulment of certain articles of the Law Amending the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 ("Law No. 7246") was requested...
In Turkish competition law, certain types of mergers and acquisitions are subject to Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) approval in order to gain legal validity. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), the Board is competent to define mergers and acquisitions...
Recently, the Competition Board (the Board) had imposed administrative fines on banks and financial institutions for failing to respond to the request for information within the scope of a preliminary investigation.[i] The request for information that lays the groundwork for the administrative fine imposed by...
Amazon, a world-famous company, is an e-commerce company that operates the world’s largest online shopping platform. In the backstage, Amazon is a data-driven company whose retail decisions are mostly driven by automated systems, fueled by the relevant market data. That being said, Amazon has a dual...
The right to make on-site inspections is one of the Competition Board’s (“Board”) most important tools for revealing whether Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) has been violated. The effective use of this authority is quite important in terms of obtaining fruitful results from...
“Harese” is an interesting Arabic word. There is a thorn that camels love very much in the desert. The camel eats the thorn with great greed. So much so that, its mouth bleeds as it eats, but it doesn't stop eating. The taste of the thorn is mixed with the salty taste of its own blood. This mixed taste drives the camel...
Turkey’s leading pay television service provider, Krea İçerik Hizmetleri ve Prodüksiyon A.Ş. (“Digiturk”), is frequently the subject of complaints made to the Competition Authority (“Authority”). In fact, the Competition Board (“Board”) issues a new decision about Digiturk almost every year. In these decisions...
The French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence), within the scope of the competition law proceeding initiated upon the complaint of Criteo SA (“Criteo”), accepted the commitments proposed by Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd., and Facebook France...
While the scope of Competition Board’s (“Board”) power to conduct on-site inspections has increased with the introduction of Guidelines on Examination of Digital Data during On-site Inspections (“Guidelines”), nowadays the amount of monetary fines imposed on undertakings continue to...
The hub and spoke cartel, which is a relatively new type of violation in terms of Turkish competition law, is defined as the indirect exchange of information between two independent undertakings which are horizontal competitors on the supplier or retailer level, through another undertaking...
The settlement mechanism has only recently been introduced to Turkish competition law practice. It entered into force with the amendment made to the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law”) numbered 4054 on 16.06.2020, and has been in effect for less than two years. In this relatively...
Due to their increasing share in the economy and rapid growth rate, e-marketplace platforms have come under the increasing scrutiny of the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) as well as many competition authorities around the world...
Pursuant to the Amendment Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Requiring the Competition Board’s Approval (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette dated March 4th, 2022 and numbered 31768, certain amendments have been introduced...
The Competition Board (“Board”) has recently published a reasoned decision in which it evaluated BSH Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.’s (“BSH”) request for negative clearance or exemption with regard to its practice of prohibiting authorized dealers from making sales through online marketplaces...
Shahmaran, a Mesopotamian myth, is believed to take place in Tarsus. According to the myth, the shah of snakes is the immortal and omniscient "Shahmaran." Shahmaran is described as a beautiful woman living in her cave with her snakes...
During the COVID-19 pandemic, competitive concerns about the pricing behavior of chain markets, manufacturers, and wholesalers engaged in the retail trade of food and cleaning supplies led to an investigation by...
When the past decisions and the recent decisions of the Competition Board (“Board”) are examined, a significant increase can be observed in the number of decisions where the Board found hindrance or obstruction of on-site inspections. This situation shows that...
The European Commission began investigating the collusive behavior of Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclays, RBS, and HSBC in the Foreign Exchange (forex) spot trading market in 2019. With the recent press release dated 02.12.2021, the Commission announced that the case is now closed...
Digitalization, in particular, necessitates the rewriting of competition law rules. Competition law is at the center all questions regarding e-commerce and digital platforms. The aforementioned platforms, which have become prominent due to innovations in...